RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00862
INDEX CODE: 107.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He receive the Meritorious Service Medal with Second Oak Leaf Cluster (MSM
w/2 OLC) for the period 8 July 1992 through 10 May 1993.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
After serving honorably during a tour of duty in South Korea, he did not
receive a decoration that clearly shows he should have been awarded. He
states that his supervisor concurred that he should have received the
award.
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the
applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the
appropriate office of the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to
recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Awards and Decorations Section Promotion, Evaluation, &
Recognition Division, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed this application and states
that the applicant has been attempting since 1994 through correspondence
and telephone calls to his immediate supervisor and additional rater to
obtain an end of tour decoration for his accomplishments in Korea.
However, both have consistently refused to resubmit a recommendation for
the AFCM w/2 OLC, or to submit a recommendation for the MSM w/2 OLC.
In 1994, the applicant’s supervisor, in response to a request to sign the
recommendation for an MSM w/2OLC, stated, “. . .as I discussed with you
before, your primary duty at 7th AF was to identify, recommend, and solve
troop and family housing deficiencies, primarily at Osan AB. You barely
scratched the surface on that task; you wasted time and occupied yourself
with many other things of your liking.” He closed with, “. . .I stick by
my previous decision, I will not recommend you for a decoration for your
tour at 7th AF.” The applicant’s additional rater, a general officer,
informed the applicant his service had been discussed with the 7th AF Civil
Engineer at length, and the additional rater was convinced there was no
discrimination involved in denial of a decoration, but “adherence to the
required guidelines for appropriate award of a Meritorious Service Medal,
i.e., for meritorious service that is “incontestably exceptional and of a
magnitude that clearly places an individual above his or her peers.” Both
officials made it clear to the applicant that they did not consider his
performance of his duties to be exceptional or warranting a decoration.
The applicant has not provided any documentation showing that he was
recommended for a decoration, and he can not submit a recommendation on
himself. Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachments, is attached
at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that his former
supervisor concurred with the AFCM. He has difficulty trying to understand
why the award was disapproved by 7th Air Force. Awards should be given for
duty performance during the tour of duty. His performance is clearly
demonstrated in the specific accomplishments throughout the decoration
package.
The advisory focuses on why he should not receive the award rather than
what did he do to justify receiving the award. He states that maybe the
only people who may care to look deeply and fairly into this matter is
congressional or legal personnel. If you look closer at this issue you
will see that this is only the pole in the tent, there is far more things
than the decoration. The decoration is the tip of the iceberg, in other
words he knows there is discrimination and favoritism at the 7th Air Force.
These denials are based on color of skin and other subjective things.
Applicants complete response is attached at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest
of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however,
we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not
been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting
the relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application
was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will
only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant
evidence not considered with this application.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 23 September 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
Mr. Edward H. Parker, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Sep 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 15 Apr 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 3 May 99.
Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response.
Her request for senior rater endorsement on the EPR should not be granted at this time. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provides the wing commander’s concurrence of her request for senior rater indorsement. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice to warrant amending the MSM citation to include...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02179
In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement and documents associated with his request for upgrade of his AFCM. He was awarded the AFCM 2OLC as an end-of-tour decoration. His commander recommended award of the AFCM at the time of his departure, which was approved by the present commander, and his request for upgrade to the MSM was denied.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00614
Examiner’s Note: In a letter, dated 23 April 2002, SAF/IGQ indicated that, “In accordance with Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records Decision, 0200614, dated 13 Mar 02, the Air Force Inspector General’s office completed expunging the IG record of the May/June 2000 investigation concerning [the applicant].” However, the AFBCMR had never rendered a decision on the applicant’s request to expunge the USAFE/IG investigation. The AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00186
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00186 INDEX CODE: 131.00, 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM), Third Oak Leaf Cluster (3OLC), for the period 3 August 1997 to 27 February 2001, be upgraded to a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) and he be considered for promotion to the grade...
AFI 36-2803, The Air Force Awards and Decoration Program, 1 January 1998, states that the recommending official determines the decoration and inclusive dates; it also states that decorations will not be based on an individual’s grade, but on the level of responsibility and manner of performance. The applicant provided a copy of his computer-generated Officer Selection Brief, dated 15 November 2000, and it reflects award of only two AFCMs. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01500
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01500 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM), fourth oak leaf cluster (4OLC), awarded for the period 16 November 98 through 23 July 2001, be upgraded to a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) and he be considered for promotion by a Special Selection Board for...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03695
A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel takes exception to the advisory opinions and presents arguments contending the application is timely, his client is not seeking promotion on the basis of expediency, she did attempt to involve the IG and upgrade the AFCM, and sufficient evidence has been provided to warrant granting the relief sought. It...
DPPPA indicated that the second DoD/IG complaint in May 97, contending further reprisal alleging that his command denied him an MSM, downgraded his 14 Jun 97 EPR, and assigned him to an inappropriate position, for the protected communication to the IG and wing safety officials, did not substantiate the applicant was the victim of continued reprisal. With regard to applicant’s request for promotion, JA agrees with HQ AFPC/DPPPWB’s assessments that should the Board void or modify either of...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00718
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00718 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 3 SEP 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214 be corrected to reflect he received the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM). He was released from active duty on 22 April 1956 and transferred to the Air Force Reserves where he...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02234
Since the applicant’s supervisor at Ramstein AB called her previous supervisor at Lackland AFB to inquire about the level of the decoration, and he was told they did not consider her for an MSM because the multiyear retention bonus was not paid, administrative channels are considered to have been exhausted, and it is appropriate for the case to be considered by the BCMR. Her complete submission is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR...